Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 141 posts

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#71

Post by gkya »

ehnto wrote: post #52
at-fates-hands wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which is odd since a lot of css "frameworks" are now back to promoting inline css. https://acss.io/ I like this idea, but I wonder how long it would take my brain to think like this.

That is crazy. Why make it an entirely new syntax with an entirely new lexicon? Bgc () instead of background-colour? I feel like new people keep entering the web field and forgetting all the lessons learned from the (very very recent) past. The inline approach might work for a small site. But in that case, why use a pre-processor at all and why would you need config objects? CSS doesn't need to be rocket science. If…

I wonder how much of those entering The Web Field have any formal education on CS and CS history, and to what extent most of them know the tools at their hand (HTML, JS, CSS, Standards, HTTP(S), browsers, other programming tools, etc). It seems to me that most of the professionals in the sector are actually paid amateurs with shallow knowledge of their own fields. This leads to reinvention of tools for that are at most on par with the existing tool chain.

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#72

Post by gkya »

allover wrote: post #24
noway421 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would there ever be megabytes of CSS for such a site Bootstrap, a theme for it, app css, a couple of 3rd party vendors, and we are over a megabyte. > a big win in productivity/quality Only if you are doing an SPA which mimics desktop applications. Which journalism sites are usually not >Why is that relevant for such a site? Who exactly is advocating for a 'plethora of dependencies' for that kind of website? Wel…

>> Bootstrap, a theme for it, app css, a couple of 3rd party vendors, and we are over a megabyte. Who's doing that? And if they are adding dependencies without consideration of page-speed, they're to blame, and they'll never understand performance. Bootstrap is not the problem. Hypothetical bad devs would have been making similar mistakes with flash prior to that, or whatever alternative CSS libs were available, and…

Nobody's picking on Bootstrap anyways.

> Who's doing that?

You either don't use the web since 2008 or something or are lying: nearly all websites start with this setup.

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#73

Post by karmelapple »

rco8786 wrote: post #63
andrewksl wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The original Facebook didn't have a status to update; that didn't come until around late 2007 or early 2008 It wasn't that late. At early as 2005, there was a form with the prompt "John Doe is:" and you had to squeeze whatever thoughts you needed your friends to know into that format.

No way. When they launched the status feature they got all kinds of crap for copying twitter, which launched in 2006.

Correct. April 20, 2007, appears to be the date according to http://www.jonloomer.com/2012/05/06/history-of-facebook-chan...

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#74

Post by wfunction »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #56
thesagan wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that you put it that way, man... things have changed. I can't help thinking about further back, too. Just imagine how it felt to live around the turn of last century! Planes, [newer] trains, and automobiles! Electricity, plumbing, underground subway transportation. Hygienic medicine. Vaccines. Telegraphs reaching out overseas and powering thousands of morning daily papers; becoming a commodity instead of luxury.…

The really weird thing is how actual technology in movies from the 80's and 90's looks so much worse to people in 2017 than technology in moves from the 50's and 60's looked to people in the late 90's.

> The really weird thing is how actual technology in movies from the 80's and 90's looks so much worse to people in 2017 than technology in moves from the 50's and 60's looked to people in the late 90's.

On the other hand though, I still feel like the analog computers they used back in the day are technologies from the future, not from the past.

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#76

Post by kgwgk »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #56
thesagan wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that you put it that way, man... things have changed. I can't help thinking about further back, too. Just imagine how it felt to live around the turn of last century! Planes, [newer] trains, and automobiles! Electricity, plumbing, underground subway transportation. Hygienic medicine. Vaccines. Telegraphs reaching out overseas and powering thousands of morning daily papers; becoming a commodity instead of luxury.…

The really weird thing is how actual technology in movies from the 80's and 90's looks so much worse to people in 2017 than technology in moves from the 50's and 60's looked to people in the late 90's.

Does it? If that's the perception, it seems unwarranted to me.

Edit: I guess the point is that most of the tech products available at home in the 90's were completely absent in the 60's. There were ancient-looking telephones, TVs and radios but no old ancient-looking walkmans, cell phones, PCs, gameboys, VCRs, modems or web sites.

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#77

Post by bluecmd »

laurieg wrote: post #68
ChuckMcM wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The really weird thing is how actual technology in movies from the 80's and 90's looks so much worse to people in 2017 than technology in moves from the 50's and 60's looked to people in the late 90's.

Orville Wright (of the Wright brothers) went from developing early airplanes to seeing the development of international travel and the jet engine. He lived until 1948 and his last flight was in a Lockheed Constellation[1] In computer science we are similarly privileged. We've gone from basic ideas of transistors and turing machines to having a global network of interconnected supercomputers in our pockets. [1] https:…

Quite interesting that super-sonic flight was achieved 1946. I don't know if Orville was informed, but imagine that - from barely flying to supersonic in 40 years.

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#78

Post by buzzybee »

wfunction wrote: post #74
ChuckMcM wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The really weird thing is how actual technology in movies from the 80's and 90's looks so much worse to people in 2017 than technology in moves from the 50's and 60's looked to people in the late 90's.

> The really weird thing is how actual technology in movies from the 80's and 90's looks so much worse to people in 2017 than technology in moves from the 50's and 60's looked to people in the late 90's. On the other hand though, I still feel like the analog computers they used back in the day are technologies from the future, not from the past.

I think I've been cured of this bias by seeing a lot of videos of analog modular synthesizers, which share the patch-cable programming techniques of analog computers. Analog systems can do some interesting things, and they have a nice physicality to them. The noise, instability, feedback, and imperfections in analog synthesis have an aesthetic appeal that has only matured with time. In ease of programming, though, simple imperative code feels like a huge release - you can actually follow the execution flow top to bottom, and the syntax makes it trivial to define many mathematical ideas.

Re: TheFacebook.com’s darker side (2004)

#79

Post by navs »

donretag wrote: post #39

Not sure why the author is so perplexed about thefacebook.com. Friendster and Myspace were already in existence and popular. Facebook was just another competitor with slightly different features (or lack there of (no customizations))

Not forgetting Hi5 and Bebo
Post reply on HN